On 2010\11\25 18:21, Mizter T wrote:

"Paul Corfield" wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:27:42 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Anyone know what the plans are for the remaining parts of the
moorgate line
are? Will LU take them over eventually?

I thought something had been said in Modern Railways about the remaining
alignment (net of any incursions by Crossrail or Thameslink works) was
being considered as potential stabling sidings for LUL use. I might be
imagining it though!


I don't think you are, though I don't think I've ever read or heard
anything solid about it. From a layman's point of view it'd seems like a
decent location for some sidings.

Given the value of land in the area, it's a decent location for pretty
much anything but sidings. There's a disused bay platform at Liverpool
Street behind shutters, so there can't be much need for extra track in
the area.

"Basil Jet" wrote:

On 2010\11\25 18:21, Mizter T wrote:

"Paul Corfield" wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:27:42 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Anyone know what the plans are for the remaining parts of the
moorgate line are? Will LU take them over eventually?

I thought something had been said in Modern Railways about the remaining
alignment (net of any incursions by Crossrail or Thameslink works) was
being considered as potential stabling sidings for LUL use. I might be
imagining it though!


I don't think you are, though I don't think I've ever read or heard
anything solid about it. From a layman's point of view it'd seems like a
decent location for some sidings.

Given the value of land in the area, it's a decent location for pretty
much anything but sidings. [...]

I disagree - this is a two-track width railway bed in a cutting next to an
operational two-track railway, and the cutting is surrounded by buildings
already. I'm not trying to suggest that there couldn't be various clever
ways of fitting in some development into this space, but it's a rather
constrained linear location (/locations) which is hardly ideal for
development.

[...] There's a disused bay platform at Liverpool Street behind shutters,
so there can't be much need for extra track in the area..

AIUI the issue w.r.t. the new S-stock trains is that they're going to be too
long for several of the present stabling sidings that exist on the
sub-surface railway. I'm not sure if the bay platform at Liverpool Street
would be workable, and I rather doubt that it alone would satisfy the
apparent need.

On 25/11/2010 16:51, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:41:58 on Thu,
25 Nov 2010, Roy Badami remarked:
istr they were supposed to be lengthening platforms at Cambridge to take
12 cars, but I think they may have changed their mind and are doing an
island instead.

Cambridge has had 12-car Class 365 services to Kings Cross in the
morning peak for some time now.

Isn't that being done by some sort of kludge, rather than lengthening
both platforms 1 & 4 so that all trains could be 12-car, as was
originally proposed?

The Island Platform at Cambridge is due to be opened in just over a
year. They've possessions booked, and it is needed for the proposed 12
car service to Liverpool St, trains for which are already being produced.

Jim

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 18:28:31 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

At this rate,
the government will be announcing in 2028 that the project was completed
in 2027, even though nothing will have actually been done.

How many times has the WCML upgrade been 'completed'?!!

Ivor wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 18:28:31 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

At this rate,
the government will be announcing in 2028 that the project was completed
in 2027, even though nothing will have actually been done.

How many times has the WCML upgrade been 'completed'?!!


Actually, it has never been completed.

Network Rail reduced the scope of works and specification to such a
extent that the WCML upgrade may never be completed to anything close
to the original scope and specification.

On Nov 25, 8:26*pm, Bruce wrote:

How many times has the WCML upgrade been 'completed'?!!

Actually, it has never been completed. *


Alternative answer : every Monday morning since 1967.

And upgraded starting every Friday night since 1967 .

--
Nick

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:41:58 on Thu,
Isn't that being done by some sort of kludge, rather than lengthening
both platforms 1 & 4 so that all trains could be 12-car, as was
originally proposed?

What kind of kludge? I thought I read here that some work (not sure
what) was done a while back to allow platform 1 to accommodate the
12-car trains.

I don't think the 12-car trains straddle platforms 1 & 4, if that's
what you mean?

-roy

On Nov 25, 10:37*am, "Mizter T" wrote:
Amongst a number of points covered in SoS Hammond's announcement this
morning was this one:

---quote---
Today, I can confirm we will fund and deliver the Thameslink programme in
its entirety, virtually doubling the number of north-south trains running
through central London at peak times. But the original programme for the
rebuilding of London Bridge was always ambitious, with substantial risks
around delivery, and operation of existing services, during construction.
To reduce these risks, we have re-profiled the delivery of the programme to
achieve completion in 2018. *This will enable Network Rail to make further
efficiencies to their design and delivery programme.
---/quote---

Source:http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speeches...ts/hammond2010...

So, it appears as though the whole shebang will go ahead as originally
envisaged, i.e. including Key Output 2 (of which the extensive Bermondsey
dive-unders on the approaches to London Bridge are a part, for instance).

Well thats me twenty quid short, I had a bet going on the GN not
joining up and the stock not being the new generation of fixed
formation 8 / 12 cars. I thought A.T.O. had been officially poo
pooed ?

Richard

"Fat richard" wrote in message
...

Well thats me twenty quid short, I had a bet going on the GN not
joining up and the stock not being the new generation of fixed
formation 8 / 12 cars. I thought A.T.O. had been officially poo
pooed ?

Never more than educated speculation I think, based on the presumption many
people seem to have made 6 months ago that 'Conservatives = Guaranteed
Cuts' - so discussion centred on what was likely to give. The flames will
have been fanned because within NR people will have had to prepare options
for downgrades, but they presumably always hoped they wouldn't happen.

When one of the rail mags I get ran a piece on ATO being cancelled a while
back, the very next issue quoted a NR denial. Over the late summer when
posters here were suggesting the new signalling might be downgraded to only
16 tph, I searched and found that a contract had just been let to install
signalling to allow 24 tph.

Paul S

On Nov 25, 10:16*pm, Fat richard wrote:

Today, I can confirm we will fund and deliver the Thameslink programme in
its entirety,

Well thats me twenty quid short, I had a bet going on the GN not
joining up and the stock not being the new generation of fixed
formation 8 / 12 cars. I thought A.T.O. had been officially poo
pooed ?


I was going for no GN link up too ... with that allowing less TPH so
no need for ATO.


mode cynic

Entirety .... ''the Thameslink programme in its entirety'' ....
yes ... now what /does/ that mean ... entirety at what point of
reference ?

At the point TL2000 morphed into TLP ? That can't be as some parts
have since been descoped from TLP eg 12car platforms at Kentish
Town, 25 kV wires to Blackfriars ... and no way was the depot ever
to be at Hornsey back then.

TLP has moved its own goalposts since TL2000.

Is it just possible there is some doublespeak here with ''entirety''
meaning ''what the DfT looked at this time round'' and some of the
rumours (like no ATO) might be facts ?


/ mode cynic

--
Nick